What if it always was?

This definition of beta is wrong. Waaaaay wrong.

All games go beta. Not many are released "outside the organization or community that develops the software".

sexier? i guess, easier to navigate,  OF COURSE NOT, my friend john has ps3 and i was there the other day and navigation is certainly not easier then xbox live. you say you own both, if you really do YOU WOULD KNOW IM TALKING ABOUT SONNY.

the playstation network rules.

Both better in different ways at this point.

Personally, imo FREE = better. Plus I can browse the web on my PS3 which gives it a lot of applications that people forget.
I'll say this though, I feel a lot better about paying that xbox live price after getting netflix. But when the games I want to play most (gears 2) online don't even work for me, I must say I'm very pissed because I don't play live very often.

XBL is fine if you really want Netflix or something, but other than that? I'd take free over paid anyday. Free online gaming is fine, and not having to wait a week for content because I'm silver is also fine. It's like you get reprimanded for not paying MS money, buy having to wait a week for all the content that Gold Members have.

In terms of functionality, connecting to live an PSN are the same, and once there, it's exactly the same. Online gaming functions the same, and there's not a difference in latency or anything. Just depends on whether you like paying money or not.

And if you don't like Home, you can delete it off of your PS3 and never see it again, it is in no way forced upon you.

PSN is not free.  You just don't pay an explicit price up front for it.

They get their investment back somehow...  Through some way they are making you pay for it.  No bean counter in any corporation that has shareholders would give anything away for free unless they were recovering the cost elsewhere.

Anyone who thinks <insert product name here> is freely given away by <insert corporate name here> is a delusional consumer that needs to be sent on a course understanding how the economy and corporations work.

Actually, you can only play PC games at the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.  So, likely, you have 60-75fps at max.  Games will say you are getting higher rates, but this is what is called tearing, and does not actually improve quality, and more frames per second are not actually being displayed.

OT: Xbox Live has the superior community integration, and it is accross the board, in every menu, every game, etc.  Multi-plat games always play better on Xbox Live (ie Call of Duty multiplayer) because Live has better dedicated servers and allows developers to use them, rather than have to host their own servers for the PSN version of multiplayer.  Having up to 8 people in a party chat, always chatting during every part of the game, even loading sections, and not being heard by others is quite the advantage.  Seemless integration with MSN Messenger is a plus.  Netflix is a huge hit, especially HD streams.  From my unbiased experience with both services, XBL is much easier to navigate, easier and smoother when it comes to downloading items, more reliable online play accross all games, and better features like Netflix, video/private chats, photo/video sharing, 8 person party, and more.

PSN is free, so I put up with its flaws and lack of a universal/easy/smooth friends interface, but if paying $40 a year meant that PSN was just as reliable as Xbox Live and had just as many features, I'd pay in a heart beat.  Also, updates and patches for multi-plat titles come to XBL much faster, and with less issues than PSN.

I'm seconds away from firing up my PS3, but no. Live is still better. Is it worth $50 a year? That's your opinion. Here are the bullet points:

-Live has a visual representation of the people on your friends list. PSN just has a list of names. (and don't say Home's avatars. I have NEVER seen anyone on my friends list in Home......and unlike a lot of people, I enjoy Home a lot!)
-Live lets you see what your friends online are doing AND what your friends offline have done (example: Elgefe02 last seen playing Gears of War 2 seven hours ago....)
-Live lets you see and compare your friends entire game library and which games they have achievements in AND which achievements they've earned. PSN only lets you see Trophy supported games
-Live has cross game chatting (wich I've never used)
-Live has Netflix wich I swear by!! It is amazing to me!
-Live is connected to Xbox.com and Xbox Live Nation.com. If you have a computer and a gamertag, you can see the progress of and message an XBox 360 player.
-For me at least, using the exact same internet service provider, PSN games lag more and drop off more than the 360 counter part(s). (Super Street Fighter 2 is my only experience, although I will try COD4 later tonight)
-Live has scheduled Lady's nights, kid/family nights, co-op nights, and other multiplayer nights
-Live still has much more downloadable content than the PS3 (downloadable games, wallpapers, music videos, tv shows, movies, game add ons, demos, etc)
-Live's gamer profiles are WAY more in depth than the PSN's options
-ALL XBL games have leaderboards. I've spent a good amount of time competing against a friend high score without them even knowing it.
-you can see your FRIEND'S friends too. Madskillz is friends with Elgefe, but not me!? That dirty sunnovabits!!

In it's favor, the PS3's web browser is pretty damned good. I use it all the time.

Both are good, but the PSN is still a good bit behind XBL. Most of this stuff doesn't matter to a large portion of gamers. Both kick the Wii's online directly in the pussy. XBL has just been around longer, and has had time to get better.